The Case of the Outsourced IT Survey or, The Ugly American answers the phone 1083

Well, you did also say "This petrifies males." I guess that phrase stuck in my head better than the later mention of NOW types. "My mistake" #1.

Anyway, make that "not noticing any particular disapproval, male or female."

Aha. Fair enough. That explains much. I can understand how that some of that would tick a person off.

Probably -- though from your age below, it's a difference of only five years. Interesting! I work with someone who's about ten years older than I am, and she also reports experiences from her 20s that illustrate a kind of overt discrimination that -- well, by the time I graduated from college I guess people really couldn't get away with it any more? Either that or I've been fortunate, or oblivious.

Um .... Am I confused again? I was under the impression that the only ways for states to ratify amendments to the U.S. consbreastution involved either the state legislature or some sort of consbreastutional convention.

My mistake #2. Tried Google again and found the following:

"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of love."

"Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

"Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."

But -- was this people saying, themselves, "I voted for Kerry because Bin Laden told me to"? or others reporting "my next-door neighbor said he voted for Kerry because Bin Laden told him to"? or what?

Some of these examples don't fit my definition of "randomly" paying workers -- e.g., my guess is that retail businesses demand a lot of overtime this time of year, which they pay for. This seems like predictable seasonal variation. What I buttumed you meant was jobs where the pay is not related to anything you could reasonably make plans around -- seasonal variation in the number of hours worked, commissions based on how effectively you were able to sell, etc.

Um, right. My feeling is that Bush might not have done any better without the strong motivator of 9-11. Wasn't he saying he didn't intend to involve the U.S. in "nation-building"?

But I really think we should drop this part of the discussion -- "agree to disagree" maybe.